<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (8) TMI 1618 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LB]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467993</link>
    <description>A Section 9 insolvency application failed because the claimed operational debt was not proved from the contractual record and a genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice. The employment documents covered salary and some reimbursements, but they did not establish any agreed liability for leave encashment or imprest account claims, and later correspondence did not show consensus on those heads. The record also indicated settlement of other dues and counter-claims by the respondent. Correspondence on leave encashment, salary-related claims, service performance, medical fitness, and accommodation issues showed a dispute well before notice, barring admission of the application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 11:56:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1618 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LB]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467993</link>
      <description>A Section 9 insolvency application failed because the claimed operational debt was not proved from the contractual record and a genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice. The employment documents covered salary and some reimbursements, but they did not establish any agreed liability for leave encashment or imprest account claims, and later correspondence did not show consensus on those heads. The record also indicated settlement of other dues and counter-claims by the respondent. Correspondence on leave encashment, salary-related claims, service performance, medical fitness, and accommodation issues showed a dispute well before notice, barring admission of the application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>